| ▲ | dylan604 5 days ago |
| Do you think they would/could have built the Saturn V without building the other engines first? |
|
| ▲ | anonymars 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think as phrased this is going to get way too pedantic. But I think it raises a larger point which is worthy to consider. Presumably what we're trying to get at is, in broad strokes, "is Starship more cost-effective to develop than Saturn V" (and I assume the follow-on for that will be to compare the "NASA approach" vs the "SpaceX approach") But you raise a good point in that the baseline playing field is completely different. The existing knowledge each program started with, be it in materials science, understanding of rocket combustion, heat shield technology, electronics, simulation ability, you name it, it's completely different. So we can find and pull out whatever numbers, but I don't think it's possible for them to say anything meaningful for comparison on their own. |
| |
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent [-] | | >but I don't think it's possible for them to say anything meaningful for comparison on their own. It depends on how different they are. Saturn V was launched 13 times in total. Starship is already 75% of the way there and hasn't orbited once. Ignoring R&D and just going by launch costs alone, that's USD 4B (2025) to orbit 1 Saturn V, vs USD x to orbit 1 Starship, where x >= 1B. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Saturn V was launched 13 times in total. Starship is already 75% of the way there Apollo 1 - lost on the launch pad, crew killed. very bad
Apollo 13 - major malfunction causing loss of mission but crew saved. very not bad Starship - 10 launches 5 failures. No crew ever so that pressure is also not comparable. Are we really claiming Starship has achieved 75% of the results of Apollo? That's absolutely ludicrous | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Starship is 75% of the way to 13 launches. That's just mathematically correct. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 days ago | parent [-] | | And is absolutely useless. Apollo 9-17 went to the moon with human occupants. All but one put men on the surface of the moon. They all returned to Earth with zero fatally exploding ships. Not one of these triumphant 75% achievement in launch numbers would have had a surviving human. Apollo had 0 practice runs. Starship is nothing but practice runs. To equate the number of launches to something so drastically different is just an exercise in futility that I can only assume you're trolling | | |
| ▲ | anonymars 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Starship is already 75% of the way there and hasn't orbited once Read it as "Starship is already 75% of the way to that cost and hasn't orbited once" (you seem to be in agreement) | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dude, when did I say they were triumphant? SpaceX is burning taxpayer money sending empty coke cans on ballistic trajectories for no good reason. My whole point with this line of inquiry has been to point out what a useless waste of resources Starship has been so far. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | terminalshort 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But who will get to 100 launches first? 1000? Saturn V was in one way a great success that will be remembered for all of history. But in another it was a failure due to your exact statement. It only launched 13 times due to being so expensive as to just not be feasible. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Neither will. >It only launched 13 times due to being so expensive as to just not be feasible. "There aren't many uses for such a gigantic rocket. Let's make an even bigger one and hope it works out!" | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Actually, "let's build a cheaper one and hope it works out" is the design philosophy here, and it's a very effective one across pretty much all domains. The fact that it's bigger too is mostly incidental to its economic case. You think we would have stopped at Apollo 17 if the same Saturn V was capable of flying Apollo 18 - 30? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | Sparyjerry 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Starship has already reached orbit many times but places itself on a suborbital trajectory to intentionally test re-entry and landing which it has done successfully several times. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Wrong. Starship has yet to orbit the planet. Certainly not "many" times, considering this is only its tenth flight. | | |
| ▲ | Sparyjerry 4 days ago | parent [-] | | They've already demonstrated they can orbit, they just choose not to. Reaching orbit and orbiting the planet are two different things. Saying that that is not reaching orbit is like saying McDonalds is failing at serving breakfast all day because they chose not to serve breakfast after 11:00 to meet their goals. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >Reaching orbit and orbiting the planet are two different things. LOL. Are you serious? To reach orbit: to reach a horizontal speed such that the spacecraft can complete a revolution around the celestial object while in free fall, without having to execute any additional maneuvers. Starship has yet to reach orbit. The reason doesn't matter. It hasn't done it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If we're going down this road, we'd have to include the global GDP back thousands of years. I asked specifically about Saturn V so I could make a reasonable comparison between it and Starship. |
| |
| ▲ | terminalshort 5 days ago | parent [-] | | What about the costs paid by the Song dynasty to develop rockets in the 13th century! | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Never mind that. Remember that Grug had to die from eating poisonous mushrooms for the first time, all so we could have disposable plastic forks. |
|
|
